Rep. Yarmuth good to be with you. Joining us in the questioning is cristina marcos, who covers capitol hill. And the correspondent covering capitol hill for the wall street journal. Let me begin with the results yesterday in new orleans. In which john bel edwards, the democrat, winning with 51 of the vote. This is a state that donald trump won by 20 Percentage Points in 2016. He campaigned there in three separate occasions. It follows the election in your home state where andy beshear defeated the republican incumbent in kentucky. What does this tell you7 rep. Yarmuth well, it tells me that President Trumps endorsement does not mean a holland. I think there were probably extraneous factors in both cases. I know in louisiana a lot of former convicts had their Voting Rights restored recently. That could have played a role. In kentucky, we had a very unpopular governor, matt bevin, who has tried to undermine the Affordable Care act here, which would have taken Health Insurance away from 95,000 people. He attacked teachers. He was quite a controversial figure. But basically, President Trump came the day before the election to kentucky. It did not do any good for matt bevin, and it looks like the same in louisiana. It is a good sign for states like ours, in which demographics are beginning to play a different role. An exit poll taken here after the election had andy beshear winning 62 to 34 among voters under 40. And with women, he had a substantial margin. So i think we are seeing here and probably in louisiana as well the National Trend where women, people of color, and younger people are beginning to determine who wins or loses. A quick followup in terms of your home state. Senator Mitch Mcconnell seeking another term, being challenged by democrat amy mcgrath. Based on what you saw in the governors race, where does that put your party in challenging the Senate Republican leader . Rep. Yarmuth well, mitch is also very unpopular. I think one poll has him at 18 Approval Rating in my district. Here in louisville, i know he is very unpopular. I was thinking that donald trump might save him, because trump won the state by about 30 points. But now the last public poll had 54 43 , approvaldisapproval, down from netapp Approval Rating down to 11. That might show that trump wont be that big of a factor. But still, he will be on the ballot and i think that will work to mcconnells benefit. If he is on the ballot there is some challenges if he is on the ballot. There is some chance he wont be. If hes not on the ballot, amy mcgrath or whoever the nominee is, we have a primary, will be a very strong competitor to him. Why would the president not be on the ballot . Rep. Yarmuth i think that he might look at a humiliating defeat staring him in the face next spring and say, i want to go out on my terms. I have made america as great as i can, and go play golf. With him it is all about ego. If he is looking at a staggering defeat, which i think is possible, he may decide not to run. There are some people i will not name, but a pretty substantial political analysts who think theres a 50 50 chance he wont be on the ballot and one of them from louisiana, as a matter of fact. If thats a good enough hint. [laughter] but i think, it is still likely he will be on it, but i think theres some chance he wont be. But in any event, we are going to have a strong candidate. Whoever runs as our nominee will have all the money he or she needs to match mitchs money and i think that will be a critical factor as well. Let me turn to cristina marcos. Of thehill. Com. Cristina thanks for being with us, congressman. I want to turn to impeachment. Democrats have a jampacked schedule of hearings this week with several witnesses. So far, polling has remained relatively stable in recent weeks. Do democrats need to convince more americans . With these hearings, to make the case for impeachment . Is there any way for democrats to do so . Rep. Yarmuth well, i think these hearings could. I think ambassador sondland, his testimony, if he testifies as to the conversations he had with the president , might make a little bit of a difference. I think where you will really see the potential for a change in Public Attitude is when the Judiciary Committee actually debates the articles of impeachment. Because i think what you will see there is not just a phone call where there was, what i call bribery or extortion against the president of ukraine. But you will see many cases of obstruction of justice, many cases of obstruction of congress. And i think the American People will get a much starker picture of the enormous offenses against the constitution that this president has committed. Andy a followup, this is andy with the wall street journal. Followup on the point about the articles of impeachment. One of the things that has been discussed after mark sandy was on the hill testifying, the question of whether the hold on the Security Assistance over the summer to ukraine violated the impoundment control act. I know this is something that as the chairman of the Budget Committee you have looked at and requested information from omb about how the money was held up. Do you think that impoundment or how the funds were handled and the legal liabilities should be part of the articles the house considers . Rep. Yarmuth i dont know. I think that would be getting into the weeds a little bit too much to move public opinion. We are working on legislation to put greater restrictions on the ability of omb to withhold spending. So we are concerned about that. Chairman mike enzi of the senate Budget Committee is working on it as well. The congress is focused on that issue. This is the preeminent power of 1. Icle the power to appropriate funds for the government. That is exclusively the power of the congress. And we need to protect that prerogative. But i think as an article of impeachment, that might be a tough sell for the American People. Not to say that it might not be worth considering, but one of the things our leadership has rightly concluded is that we cannot have 15 articles of impeachment and hope to make a compelling case to the American People. Let me follow up on andys point. During the timeframe of july to arly to mid september, did you know that 391 million in aid to ukraine was being held up . Rep. Yarmuth no. I had no idea. I do not think anyone knew until the whistleblower letter came out. I certainly was not aware. We did request information from omb. We got some, but not all. And when the Intelligence Committee subpoenaed omb, they made a determination they could not comply with our request any further. So we have information about that. Of course, it is now Public Knowledge that the process was taken out of the hands of the Career Civil Service people in the omb and turned over to political appointees to take the funds away, withhold the funds from ukraine. We also know that the pentagon had signed off, saying that the funds should have been disbursed, that ukraine complied with the terms that they thought important. So, we had that kind of information. But again, i think there are far more serious offenses that our caucus would want to concentrate on. One followup. Your colleague republican jim jordan of ohio insists the whistleblower needs to testify. Senator Lindsey Graham says he would not proceed with a senate trial until that person testifies. But whoever this person is has admitted that it is secondhand information that he received regarding the phone call. This week, we will hear from people who will have firsthand information. Colonel vindland, ambassador sondland. Based on that, do you feel it is important to hear from the first whistleblower . Mr. Yarmuth no. Is theyre trying to do impugn his information or motives and thereby in some way undermine the value of what he alerted the Inspector General to. But in fact, everything he mentioned in the initial ninepage complaint has been verified by the people who actually provided the information. Host why do they keep pushing this . Mr. Yarmuth well, i think they want to come in and say, well, you are a democrat or you are a never trumper and you had political motivation. Again, that is just distracting from the substance of what the information he provided, which has all been corroborated by witnesses who were closer to it than he was. So there is no value in having unless re the congress its to let the republicans try and estion his motivation somehow distract people from the substance of the complaint. Let me turn to cristina marcos. Cristina congressman, to followup on other possible articles of impeachment. You have long been a supporter of impeaching this president. Do you think the potential obstruction of justice allegations laid out in special counsel muellers report should also be part of potential articles of impeachment that the house considers . Or should it be limited to the ukraine affair . Rep. Yarmuth no, i do think we ought to look at some of those. In the mueller report, there were 10 cases of obstruction of justice in which mr. Mueller concluded they met all three conditions for a legitimate charge of obstruction of justice. But, because of Justice Department policy, he could not bring criminal charges against the president. He said very clearly in the report, the president obstructed justice on 10 different occasions. I think at least several of them ought to be part of any articles of impeachment. Ost andy of tthe wall street journal. Andy congressman, i wanted to ask you about the continuing resolution the house is going to take up this week. It seems like that will last through december 20. Do you think that is a realistic timeline to complete all work necessary to fund the government after december 20 . Do you think that negotiations are going well enough for that to be an end date . Rep. Yarmuth i think that negotiations are going well enough that we can fund the vast majority of the government through regular order. I think it will be tough for us to come to an agreement on the Homeland Security budget because of border wall funding. Us from doesnt prevent approving the Appropriations Bills the other 11 bills, which congress is supposed to do. So, i can see a scenario in which we pass those 11 Appropriations Bills and do a continuing resolution for Homeland Security alone. I think that would be great progress. It would be a nice christmas present, to be able to get that out of the way. Cristina with the budget deal over the summer, treasury secretary mnuchin has been emerging as a key player in these latest negotiations over spending. Is he essentially the only member of the administration that democrats can deal with on these budget issues . Mr. Yarmuth well, i think youd ow ordinarily say Mick Mulvaney would be one as well. But i think mick has other distractions. I think right now that is probably the case, that secretary mnuchin is the only one. I have not heard of any other Administration Officials who has been part of the negotiations. Ndy you mentioned Mick Mulvaney. Im wondering, have you been in touch with him at all lately . I know he is someone youre close with and you have gone to campaign with him and other members of congress. Have you kept in touch with him lately . Rep. Yarmuth no. I really havent been in touch with him since shortly after the camp david visit, back in february or march i believe. Havent talked to him since then. Host let me go back to the issue. Mr. Yarmuth i would talk to him. Host why is it so hard for democrats and republicans to pass a budget on time . As a followup, whats the likelihood that down the road we could see a twoyear budget blueprint . Rep. Yarmuth to your first question, we passed all of our Appropriations Bills except for Homeland Security and the administrative congressional budget by the end of june. We did our work, and very expeditiously. I cannot explain why the senate has not done its work. But that seems to be typical, under senator mcconnells leadership. There is no reason that we cant do it, that the senate cant do it. They do not seem to be doing anything else, except approving unqualified judges to the federal bench. But we can do our job. As to the second point, i think there is a real possibility that we might do a twoyear budgeting cycle. Last year, we had a bipartisan committee, house and senate, to consider reforms of the budget appropriations process. That was one of the items that seems to have a significant amount of bipartisan and bicameral support. I think it makes sense. Even though it is only one more year, it does have the effect of forcing us to think a little bit longerterm, and that is always good. It would bring more certainty to the departments so they can operate more efficiently and not have to worry about longerterm contracts being written and signed and Research Grants being cut off. I think it would be great for the agencies if we did that. And it would allow is in the congress to do more budgetary oversight, which we have not done nearly enough of. Host cristina marcos. Cristina another followup on a potential spending deal. You suggested there could be a temporary patch for the department of Homeland Security while the rest of the government is funded in another vehicle. I am wondering is there any chance that democrats would vote for a spending bill that does not limit trumps ability to transfer funds like he did earlier this year in moving military Construction Funds to the border wall . Also, is there any way that democrats could vote for a spending deal that even allows a dollar for border wall funding . Rep. Yarmuth well, i am not going to negotiate for the entire democratic caucus. But i think the last spending bill, there was 1 billion for fence maintenance. 1. 5 billion, i think. It depends on how you define expenditures for a border wall. But the question of spending 5 billion or 6 billion for a border wall is a nonstarter. That has no chance of passing the house. Andy congressman, on the transfer authority point, is this something, one thing that republicans have been saying is that democratic efforts to restrict the president s transfer authority violate the agreement reached over the summer for no poison pills in the budget negotiations. Is that something, is that a legitimate criticism, that trying to limit the president s transfer authority violates that no poison pill agreement from over the summer . Rep. Yarmuth i dont think that that type of provision would violate the promise of no poison pills. But somebody elses logical, sound provision is somebody elses poison pill. If republicans feel its a poison pill, theyll claim it violates the agreement. It just depends on whether they would risk shutting down the government or dealing with c. R. s next year is worth the price of holding to that principle. I think, part of, the number one prerogative of the house under the constitution, the congress under the constitution is to decide what spending is done. There are processes for moving funding. And if the administration were to follow them, probably everyone will be ok with it, but thats not with this administration does. They are assuming they have the ultimate authority over where money is spent. Clearly, the constitution says otherwise. Did you want to follow up . Andy no. Let me turn back to politics, ask you about the Senate Republican leader in your home state. First of all, who do you want to see as the democratic nominee . Rep. Yarmuth i want to see whoever wins the primary. I think whoever wins the democratic primary will have proven himself or herself to be the superior campaigner, and the candidate with the most appeal. We have to have, in order to win a race in kentucky, we have to have every democratic vote that is possible. We cant have any candidate who jeopardizes, threatens the loss of democratic voters. There are not enough persuadable voters in the state. I dont think theres much opportunity to convert a lot of republicans. We have already converted a lot of suburbanites in louisville and lexington. We won, andy beshear won the election in louisville by 100,000 votes. Actually 99,999. That is an unprecedented margin, because we motivated and turned out every single democratic voter we can. So i think in the democratic primary, we have to have, the winner will be the one who proves themselves to be the best campaigner and best candidate for the democrats. That is priority number one. To that point, if the democrats nominate somebody like Elizabeth Warren or senator Bernie Sanders proposing medicare for all or for all who want it, can that candidate win in your state . Rep. Yarmuth its unlikely. But interestingly enough, in 2016, Bernie Sanders did extremely well in kentucky in the democratic primary. He had almost 50 of the delegates. It was like 52 to 48 of the delegates. So he did well here. But i think in a general election in kentucky where voters have trended republican in national elections, that would probably be a difficult spot. I dont think he would, that this would be Bernie Sanderss best state. Ill say that. That would be the message of senator Mitch Mcconnell, that if there is a nominee or elected president , he is the one candidate who would stop a medicare for all proposal from moving in the senate. Rep. Yarmuth interestingly enough, i am not sure how medicare for all would play here. The